Template talk:Infobox software
Can we change the template to add a screenshot size option? The template currently sets the size of the screenshot statically. The issue with this is that while it works well for screenshots that have more height than width (e.g. Mobile, PHP Character Widget), it makes screenshots that have more width than height tiny and unreadable (e.g. Toggl, HabitRPG-TXT). I propose that we modify the template to allow the size of screenshots to be modified by the editors. I think the best way to do this is to add a "screenshot size" parameter. If unset, the size will default to 300px, but if set, the size will be set to whatever is entered. What do you guys think? Anothersphynx (talk) 06:56, April 30, 2015 (UTC) : Yes, good idea. Please do! LadyAlys (talk) 21:32, April 30, 2015 (UTC) : I definitely agree. My only concern is how the custom size might function on a mobile view. But come to think of it, I don't know how images work on mobile right now anyway, since I basically only access the wiki on my phone, so maybe that isn't a worry? --tricksy.fox (talk) 13:28, August 13, 2016 (UTC) Redesign conception What is the most important information about tool/app? Text/description to know what it is for and what it does. When it appears with this template? Last, after infobox and screenshot. I don't think is the best idea to do things like that. Also, like its name points, this template should be an infobox only. So it should be used only to display things in box, literally. But currently it is also used to process some page content other than that (like 'description', 'usage' and other parts of the article) which is not really flexible and leads to some problems like with screenshots that editors have right now. That's why I think that those informations should be separated and the template by itself should be redesigned. : Totally agreed! I was moving descriptions into the infobox just so it would be consistent across the board, but if it were consistently separate would probably be better. --tricksy.fox (talk) 13:33, August 13, 2016 (UTC) What I think needs to/could be made? # All non-infobox parts of this template should be excluded from it. #* app/ext pages will have to be adjusted #* It needs to be decided if at least one screenshot should also be a part of an infobox or all of them should be separate part. # Template should be changed/fixed to play the role of infobox as it should (mostly general and/or technical info aside). # Infobox could be extended to provide some more info based on the content that already is at Extensions,_Add-Ons,_and_Customizations (like type and platform and if it's maintained or deprecated). # Changes could be taken even further by storing all non-language specific and technical info in a separate data-collecting pages and make them to be loaded by infobox. With such approach all such info could be used across all wikis and be manage in one place, keeping all info up to date everywhere with one change (info like logo, maintainer, website, version, release date and so on). : Re #1, I'm not sure a screenshot is necessary for EVERY app/ext, so I'm leaning toward separate. --tricksy.fox (talk) 13:33, August 13, 2016 (UTC) Split of the work Work could be made in one step or divided into two: :a) short term (including points from 1 to 2 or 3) I did a quick demonstration so you could compare how page Hide Level Numbers looks now, and how it could look User:Falanthil/Hide_Level_Numbers with almost no effort. (Maybe not the most convincing example. There are some other much more broken pages that could be shown here but I wasn't aware of them when doing this.) :b) long term (the rest a.k.a. deep changes) ---- Opinions? Thoughts? Falanthil (talk) 11:52, August 13, 2016 (UTC) :Just woke up and it's the weekend, so more thoughts to follow as my brain gets to working again! --tricksy.fox (talk) 13:33, August 13, 2016 (UTC) :I think it's best for install, description, and usage to be covered by the article itself (that is, not added via a parameter of this template). That's a hefty sort of thing for an infobox template to take on, and including it there is, in my mind, treating the infobox as if it itself should be the article. And that's not an infobox's job, really. I do think a screenshot should be included where appropriate and available (and maybe in the infobox itself?)... though on the other hand, if the screenshot contains any information not listed in the article text, that means it's inaccessible to screen reader users... (Sorry, my pet cause is alt text lately, and the current infobox code more or less prevents alt text from being possible.) I've also noticed this infobox is using different code than the recommended portable infobox markup for images. Does anyone know there's a reason for that? - Citrusellaeditswikis (talk) 16:29, August 15, 2016 (UTC) : Image's tags forces you to use CSS to style and, especially, to resize an image because there is no other option to do it. So if you would like to give an editor option to input a size of an image then it would be possible to process and apply it in the way similar to that in the template right now. It would be impossible to do it with image tags. I feel like markup of portable infoboxes is limited and don't have much, lets call it, formatting capabilities. But maybe it is good to style them only through CSS files. Alt text can be very easily added to the current code (and it should be added - good point Citrusellaeditswikis), infoboxe's markup isn't necessary for that. - Falanthil (talk) 20:19, August 15, 2016 (UTC) ::Yeah, I was just wondering and hadn't thought of the width! I think my brain glossed over that because of the strange combo of standard Mediawiki template markup and the portable infobox markup. :P And I do suppose doing it the way currently in use makes it easier for non-admins to mess with... I think the decision of on-page vs. in the site CSS is probably something that really depends on a wiki's users and the platforms they use, among other things. I'm not sure I feel one way or another on the state of that here. (And on the subject of portable infoboxes, I know a sizable number of people who don't like them for a variety of reasons. XP) Alt text can be indeed be easily added in either form of the markup (i.e. MediaWiki or portable infobox), though. Just brought it up because I had noticed the infoboxes were more rigid with the option :) - Citrusellaeditswikis (talk) 04:05, August 16, 2016 (UTC)